JUDGMENT In an earlier round of proceedings, a learned Single Judge, by an order dated 18 August 2015, had observed that consistent with the position in law, transfer being a condition of service, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be maintained. However, liberty was granted to the appellants to submit a representation in regard to hardships occasioned by their transfer from Saharanpur to Meerut as Mukhya Sevikas. Their representation was rejected on 22 September 2015 by the Director, Child Development and Nutrition. The order of the Director records that the appellants were in a transferable service and had been serving at Saharanpur which is their home district for nearly 16 years. 2. On this conspectus of facts, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the second writ petition on the subject. 3. Having due regard to what has been observed above, we see no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19 November 2015. 4. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.